Code Analysis

Code Style

To mantain a code style in the project we define guidelines for each programming language involved. These rules defines best practice and methods for each aspect of a program written in that language. For example, the guidelines cover file organization, indentation, comments, declarations, statements, white space, naming conventions, programming practices, programming principles, etc.

Some examples of these guidelines can be found in Programming.

We suggest two ways of check the code style in a project, Linters and Code Reviews.


You can use linters tool to verify code style guidelines. If you are in doubt about which tool you should use, refer to each language guidelines page. e.g:

Commit Hooks

You can use commit hooks to verify the code style guidelines and the commit message by overriding the following files .git/hooks/pre-commit and .git/hooks/commit-msg respectively. Have a Commit Message guidelines is important to track the changes in your repository. For example, you can define the following regular expresion to validate your messages: /#\d+: A-Z*/ (i.e #555: Fix typo in guideline). You may find this article useful. You can check out this article to learn more about Git hooks.

In Sophilabs, we recommend configure the linters execution with git hooks using gilp.

Code Review

A code review is the process of manually inspecting source code written by another person. It allows us to find errors that might have been overlooked by the original author, and it does so at an early stage. Code reviews are not only for finding errors though; reading code written by someone else can improve our own skills and knowledge.


As the developer 1

We use Gitlab or Github to manage our code reviews. We'll be referring to Gitlab from now on since it's what you'll be using most of the time, but they're fairly similar.

Every time you push changes to your branch Gitlab will allow you to open a code review to merge those changes onto a branch of your choice (usually dev, but it will depend on the project you're working on). You get to choose the reviewer as well, typically your team will instruct you on who to choose.

After the reviewer finishes, they will either merge your changes or add comments (you will see these comments in Gitlab) to your code, probably requesting to change/fix something. Some people prefer to simply talk to the developer instead of adding comments, which is also fine. In the case you receive feedback, you will need to make the necessary changes to your code and push your branch again; Gitlab will automatically update the code review so the reviewer sees the latest version of your code.

  1. Don't check only your code: also make sure your branch is correctly named (naming conventions will depend on the project) and that you're requesting to merge your changes onto the right branch.

  2. Avoid sending too many changes in one merge review as it get's easier for the reviewer to overlook errors if there is too much code to review. The ideal amount of code will depend on the language, but try to stay under 300 lines overall.

  3. The primary reviewer is the author i.e. YOU.

  4. Create a checklist for yourself of the things that the code reviews tend to focus on. Some of this checklist should be easy to put together. It should follow the outline of the coding standards document. Because it’s your checklist, you can focus on the thing that you struggle with and skip the things that you rarely, if ever, have a problem with. Run through your code with the checklist and fix whatever you find. Not only will you reduce the number of things that the team finds, you’ll reduce the time to complete the code review meeting—and everyone will be happy to spend less time in the review.

  5. You are not your code. Remember that the entire point of a review is to find problems, and problems will be found. Don’t take it personally when one is uncovered.

  6. Understand and accept that you will make mistakes. The point is to find them early, before they make it into production. Fortunately, except for the few of us developing rocket guidance software at JPL, mistakes are rarely fatal in our industry, so we can, and should, learn, laugh, and move on.

  7. No matter how much "karate" you know, someone else will always know more. Such an individual can teach you some new moves if you ask. Seek and accept input from others, especially when you think it’s not needed.

  8. Don’t rewrite code without consultation. There’s a fine line between "fixing code" and “rewriting code.” Know the difference, and pursue stylistic changes within the framework of a code review, not as a lone enforcer.

  9. The only constant in the world is change. Be open to it and accept it with a smile. Look at each change to your requirements, platform, or tool as a new challenge, not as some serious inconvenience to be fought.

  10. Fight for what you believe, but gracefully accept defeat. Understand that sometimes your ideas will be overruled. Even if you do turn out to be right, don’t take revenge or say, "I told you so" more than a few times at most, and don’t make your dearly departed idea a martyr or rallying cry.

  11. Don’t be "the guy in the room." Don’t be the guy coding in the dark office emerging only to buy cola. The guy in the room is out of touch, out of sight, and out of control and has no place in an open, collaborative environment.

  12. Please note that Review meetings are NOT problem solving meetings.

  13. Help to maintain the coding standards. Offer to add to the coding standards for things discussed that aren’t in the coding standards. One of the challenges that a developer has in an organization with combative code review practices is that they frequently don’t know where the next problem will come from. If you document each issue into the coding standards, you can check for it with your checklist the next time you come up for code reviews. It also will help cement the concept into your mind so that you’re less likely to miss opportunities to use the feedback.

As the reviewer

When someone assigns you a code review, you will get a notification from Gitlab by email. Simply visit the link in it and Gitlab will show you a page with a diff between the two versions of each modified file. You are able to add comments to individual lines of each file. If you do so, the author will update their code and push their branch again, then you will see an updated view of the merge request under the same url.

Tips 2
  1. Don't check only the code: also make sure the branch is correctly named (naming conventions will depend on the project) and that the author is requesting to merge their changes onto the right branch.

  2. Critique code instead of people – be kind to the coder, not to the code. As much as possible, make all of your comments positive and oriented to improving the code. Relate comments to local standards, program specs, increased performance, etc.

  3. Treat people who know less than you with respect, deference, and patience. Nontechnical people who deal with developers on a regular basis almost universally hold the opinion that we are prima donnas at best and crybabies at worst. Don’t reinforce this stereotype with anger and impatience.

  4. The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position. Knowledge engenders authority, and authority engenders respect – so if you want respect in an egoless environment, cultivate knowledge.

  5. Please note that Review meetings are NOT problem solving meetings.

  6. Ask questions rather than make statements. A statement is accusatory. "You didn’t follow the standard here" is an attack—whether intentional or not. The question, “What was the reasoning behind the approached you used?” is seeking more information. Obviously, that question can’t be said with a sarcastic or condescending tone; but, done correctly, it can often open the developer up to stating their thinking and then asking if there was a better way.

  7. Avoid the "Why" questions. Although extremely difficult at times, avoiding the”Why” questions can substantially improve the mood. Just as a statement is accusatory—so is a why question. Most “Why” questions can be reworded to a question that doesn’t include the word “Why” and the results can be dramatic. For example, “Why didn’t you follow the standards here…” versus “What was the reasoning behind the deviation from the standards here…”

  8. Remember to praise. The purposes of code reviews are not focused at telling developers how they can improve, and not necessarily that they did a good job. Human nature is such that we want and need to be acknowledged for our successes, not just shown our faults. Because development is necessarily a creative work that developers pour their soul into, it often can be close to their hearts. This makes the need for praise even more critical.

  9. Make sure you have good coding standards to reference. Code reviews find their foundation in the coding standards of the organization. Coding standards are supposed to be the shared agreement that the developers have with one another to produce quality, maintainable code. If you’re discussing an item that isn’t in your coding standards, you have some work to do to get the item in the coding standards. You should regularly ask yourself whether the item being discussed is in your coding standards.

  10. Remember that there is often more than one way to approach a solution. Although the developer might have coded something differently from how you would have, it isn’t necessarily wrong. The goal is quality, maintainable code. If it meets those goals and follows the coding standards, that’s all you can ask for.

  11. You shouldn’t rush through a code review - but also, you need to do it promptly. Your coworkers are waiting for you.

  12. Review fewer than 200-400 lines of code at a time.

Branching Strategy

We reccomend follow Git Flow

Recommended strategies:

  • Having the master branch (or the equivalent) protected, meaning all commits must be merged from feature branches.

  • Ensuring every commit must be made inside a particular branch that encapsulate that particular task.

We also recomend implement Code Review, which is a practice to ensure code quality and attachment to the [guidelines][vinagecr]. As a rule of thumb:

  • Code reviews must be enforced before merging code to the master branch.

  • Code reviews should follow the guidelines.


We recommend having a README and a Contributing guidelines file in the root of your project. Those files can include:

  • Development tools: Text editors, IDEs, Plugins.

  • Required environment files.

  • Procedures for installing Hooks.

  • Naming conventions.

  • Common design patterns used in the code.